Swap UK with France during the Falklands War.

[Archibald]

I would say yes - the IR Magic, just like the AIM-9, was an AAM quite easy to adapt to many different aerial platforms. In fact the Magic 2 could be adapted to the Crusaders quite easily - and that weapon is presently carried by Mirage 2000-5 and Rafales, which says something.

The older Magic 1 was equally adaptable, I do know Mirage IIIs got them (Argentina and elsewhere). Probably not too complicated to wire more S.E pylons for more Magics.

@H_K also mentions the fact that S.E were flown for low and medium CAP during the Foch and Clemenceau Gulf war missions in the late 1980's, something I did not knew before this thread.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except for the last point. FRENCH GUYANA - that's the key. You forgot that one. Earlier in the thread I used an on-line flying distance calculator to check, and it is the exact same distance from the Falklands as Ascencion island. Only 51 km further, actually.

I didn't forget it. I ignored it.

Ships can't sail across Brazil and the Brazilian Government won't allow overflying rights.

If Brazil did allow overflying rights it would have risked starting a war with Argentina and if Brazil was at war with Argentina.

1. Brazil would have allowed France to use Brazilian ports and air bases which were closer than the French bases in Guiana and West Africa.
2. The Argentines would be too busy fighting the Brazilians to be bothered about defending the Falklands.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've heard that one of the reasons why the Embraer-Short Tucano won the contract to replace the Jet Provost in the RAF was to repay the Brazilian Government for helping the UK during the Falklands War.

Is that true? And if it is, what was the help that the Brazilians provided?

 

[Archibald]

Except for the last point. FRENCH GUYANA - that's the key. You forgot that one. Earlier in the thread I used an on-line flying distance calculator to check, and it is the exact same distance from the Falklands as Ascencion island. Only 51 km further, actually.

I didn't forget it. I ignored it.

Ships can't sail across Brazil and the Brazilian Government won't allow overflying rights.

If Brazil did allow overflying rights it would have risked starting a war with Argentina and if Brazil was at war with Argentina.

1. Brazil would have allowed France to use Brazilian ports and air bases which were closer than the French bases in Guiana and West Africa.
2. The Argentines would be too busy fighting the Brazilians to be bothered about defending the Falklands.

Ah drats, so that's not a matter of distances. Fair enough then. So much for having a forward base the same distance as Ascension, damn it.

And now, something funny: France ALSO brought Tucanos from Brazil, except in the mid-1990's. And the experience was not exactly a good one, the aircraft were retired only 15 years later.

Now, the Fouga Magisters were already quite old in the ealry 1980's, and Alphajets couldn't do everything. Maybe a Tucano deal in exchange for overflights across Brazilian airspace ?

Note that C-135FR and Atlantique 2 have such ranges, they can probably fly around Brazil airspace on the way to the Falklands.
Hence French Guyana can still be used as a forward base for C-135FR, Atlantique 2 and ships - Ascension style - but taking into account that Brazilian overflight issue.
But is it really an issue ? not quite. Since Mirage IVs or Jaguars can't do any Black Buck, hence the AdA is out of the fight... maybe those overflights are not needed in the end.

We discussed the navy transport and logistics issues, but the Armée de l'Air air bridge toward Guyana would face similar issues. Because the bulk of transport squadrons was Transalls - C-130s only came in the late 1980's. Plus a couple of DC-8s, and that's it.
Maybe Air France 747-200F could help, they were used to support Arianespace launch campaigns - so they know their way to Cayenne airport.

Air France Flotte de B747 (Historique) | Airfleets aviation

Air France Flotte de B747 (Historique) - Site aéronautique sur les compagnies aériennes et les avions de ligne (vol, voyage, photo, flotte, liste de production, immatriculations des Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Embraer, ATR, Sukhoi, Saab, Dash...), photos d'avions pour les planespotters, base de...

www.airfleets.fr

20887 245 747-228F/SCD F-BPVO 01/04/1982

21255 295 747-228F/SCD F-BPVR 13/10/1976

21787 398 747-228F/SCD F-BPVZ 18/09/1979

21576 334 747-228F F-BPVV 09/08/1978

I would say French Guyana would be prefered to Senegal or Ivory Coast, for the following reasons.
- it is a French territory (no political problems)
- with much, much better infrastructures
- better security too (don't forget the Argies had plans to bomb Gibraltar with commandos, if they can reach as far as Europe, then Africa is a softer and closer target).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I did these calculations on Ports.com and it turned out that French Guiana is the closest even if you do have to fly around Brazil.

​

I as also surprised to discover that Dakar is closer to Stanley than Abidjan. The distances that I gave in the earlier post were from Abidjan and Dakar to Ascension Island. Ports.com wouldn't calculate the distances to Ascension Island.

In spite of that and in spite of @Archibald's good reasons in favour of French Guiana my forward base of choice is Dakar. It may be further away than French Guiana, but the distance from Toulon to the Falklands via Dakar is the shortest. The ships will burn less fuel getting to the Falklands and after taking the small number of tankers that were available into account could make all the difference.

All the times are at 10 knots.

NB

And when you're calculating make sure you have the correct Port Stanley. There are several Stanleys, Stanley Harbours and Port Stanleys. I had to do mine twice because I discovered that half the distances were for one of the two Stanleys in Canada.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A question for @Archibald.

Senegal became independent of France in 1960 but as I understand it France maintained air and naval bases in the country until after the end of the Cold War. Is that correct?

 

[publiusr]

The big problem for the French is the lack of nuclear subs. Without them the Argentinian Navy is back in play and has the potential to cause serious damage.

True, but if scenario played out a decade later—-the atomic tests of the mid 90’s might have the Argentines spooked.

December 27: France Concludes Nuclear Weapons Tests | This Day in History | Computer History Museum

www.computerhistory.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995–96_French_nuclear_tests

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except for the last point. FRENCH GUYANA - that's the key. You forgot that one. Earlier in the thread I used an on-line flying distance calculator to check, and it is the exact same distance from the Falklands as Ascencion island. Only 51 km further, actually.

I didn't forget it. I ignored it.

Ships can't sail across Brazil and the Brazilian Government won't allow overflying rights.

If Brazil did allow overflying rights it would have risked starting a war with Argentina and if Brazil was at war with Argentina.

1. Brazil would have allowed France to use Brazilian ports and air bases which were closer than the French bases in Guiana and West Africa.
2. The Argentines would be too busy fighting the Brazilians to be bothered about defending the Falklands.

Ah drats, so that's not a matter of distances. Fair enough then. So much for having a forward base the same distance as Ascension, damn it.

And now, something funny: France ALSO brought Tucanos from Brazil, except in the mid-1990's. And the experience was not exactly a good one, the aircraft were retired only 15 years later.

Now, the Fouga Magisters were already quite old in the ealry 1980's, and Alphajets couldn't do everything. Maybe a Tucano deal in exchange for overflights across Brazilian airspace ?

Note that C-135FR and Atlantique 2 have such ranges, they can probably fly around Brazil airspace on the way to the Falklands.
Hence French Guyana can still be used as a forward base for C-135FR, Atlantique 2 and ships - Ascension style - but taking into account that Brazilian overflight issue.
But is it really an issue ? not quite. Since Mirage IVs or Jaguars can't do any Black Buck, hence the AdA is out of the fight... maybe those overflights are not needed in the end.

We discussed the navy transport and logistics issues, but the Armée de l'Air air bridge toward Guyana would face similar issues. Because the bulk of transport squadrons was Transalls - C-130s only came in the late 1980's. Plus a couple of DC-8s, and that's it.
Maybe Air France 747-200F could help, they were used to support Arianespace launch campaigns - so they know their way to Cayenne airport.

Air France Flotte de B747 (Historique) | Airfleets aviation

Air France Flotte de B747 (Historique) - Site aéronautique sur les compagnies aériennes et les avions de ligne (vol, voyage, photo, flotte, liste de production, immatriculations des Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Embraer, ATR, Sukhoi, Saab, Dash...), photos d'avions pour les planespotters, base de...

www.airfleets.fr

20887 245 747-228F/SCD F-BPVO 01/04/1982

21255 295 747-228F/SCD F-BPVR 13/10/1976

21787 398 747-228F/SCD F-BPVZ 18/09/1979

21576 334 747-228F F-BPVV 09/08/1978

I would say French Guyana would be prefered to Senegal or Ivory Coast, for the following reasons.
- it is a French territory (no political problems)
- with much, much better infrastructures
- better security too (don't forget the Argies had plans to bomb Gibraltar with commandos, if they can reach as far as Europe, then Africa is a softer and closer target).

Before the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 the RAF had 12 transport and 3 tanker squadrons.

• 14 VC.10 in one squadron
• 23 Britannias in two squadrons
• 10 Belfasts in one squadron
• 5 Comets in one squadron
• 65 Hercules in six squadrons
• 31 Andovers in one squadron
• 30 Victor Mk 1 in three squadrons and one training flight

Those were the total numbers of aircraft procured and not the number left in the middle 1970s. E.g. the 31 Andovers originally equipped three squadrons so my guess is that about 10 were left in 1975.

The Mason Review cut the transport force to the VC.10 squadron and four Hercules squadrons. However, the redundant Hercules were put into storage rather than sold and 30 aircraft were brought up to Hercules C.3 standard. 5 of the 10 redundant Belfasts were bought by TAC HeavyLift which allowed the British Government to charter them during the Falklands.

Meanwhile, the tanker force was cut to two squadrons and the training flight. These units converted to the Victor K.2 but the number of conversions was cut from the 29 planned before the review to 24.

They're not proper military transport aircraft, but could the French Government requisition airliners from Air France, Air Inter and UTA which are the three largest French airlines of the early 1980s that I know of.

 

[Archibald]

In spite of that and in spite of @Archibald's good reasons in favour of French Guiana my forward base of choice is Dakar. It may be further away than French Guiana, but the distance from Toulon to the Falklands via Dakar is the shortest. The ships will burn less fuel getting to the Falklands and after taking the small number of tankers that were available could make all the difference.

All the times are at 10 knots.

Fair enough, I see your point. TBH, I think both would be used. Because that's the way France works, and also because the Falklands are so remote, they are just a giant PITA for logistics unless you are Argentina or Chile.

 

[H_K]

Have you any idea how it compared to a 1982 standard Sea Harrier when operating as a fighter?

The RN modified their Sea Harriers to carry 4 Sidewinders after the Falklands War. Could the French have modified their Super Etendards to carry more Magics?

The Super Etendard operating with 2x large drop tanks (1,100L vs. 625L) would have excellent endurance. Combat radius was quoted as 620nm (1,150km) in interdiction configuration with 4x Magic AAMs.

(Note: These configurations are for land-based use, the SuE was weight limited to 11,900kg on the Clemenceau catapults, which only allows for 2 AAMs + 1,100L drop tanks. However I think an extra 2x AAMs ie. +300kg launch weight might have been achievable in the Falklands’ cold weather).

There was an option to add 2 Magic AAMs on an inner wing pylon in front of the landing gear - the Israelis first did this on their Super Mystère B2, which had a similar wing. Dassault advertised the option (below) but in the end the Aéronavale only used that pylon for flare pods.

Turn performance was advertised as excellent at sea level (6.2g sustained turn, 22 degrees/sec instantaneous), owing to good lift/drag ratios.

This is roughly equal to the A-4M and superior to the F-4J (I’ve drawn an estimate below). Obviously performance would be less impressive at altitude or in the vertical due to the lower thrust/weight.

 

[Archibald]

Where did you got that stupendous stuff ?

EDIT : Air&Cosmos. I should have guessed !

- Wait, gun pods with 2*30 mm each ? 6 DEFA guns ? Now that one would be one helluva firepower during straffing missions. You could blast a Kirov nuclear battlecruiser, with that kind of firepower.

- Makes me wonder whether Foch should have launched 4*Magic Super Etendard against the Bears, in Red Storm Rising Dance of vampires...

- As for the radius of action, at least it is one of the few advantage of NOT carrying a heavy and voracious afterburner...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've made a new spreadsheet for the Aeronavale Flotilles from 1953 (when they were re-numbered) until the end of 1990.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is a cut down version for 1965-85 that might be easier to read and excludes a lot of information that isn't relevant to the thread.

 

[Archibald]

Wow, hell of a job. You sir, have my respect.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Wow, hell of a job. You sir, have my respect.

That was "easy peasy" in comparison to some of the others.

The website that I took the information from presented it in an easily transcribable way.

The main difficulty was that it wouldn't let me copy and paste it directly into the spreadsheet. I've got no short-term memory so I had to write it out on a piece of paper and then transcribe my notes into the spreadsheet.

The second difficulty is that I ran out of colours for the background.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I looked the British and French merchant marines up in the copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 on the Internet Archive.

2,975 vessels of 25,419,427 tons, gross, UK​

1,199 vessels of 11,455,033 tons, gross, France​

While I was at it I looked up the Durance class. There were two available in 1982 and two more under construction. The two ships that were under construction were to replace the tankers La Charente and Isere. The Durance class had a full load displacement of 17,800 tons and the older tankers had full load displacements of 26,000 and 26,700 tons respectively.

These ships don't compare so badly to the 4 large replenishment tankers that the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary had, which were the 3 Ol class of 36,000 tons full load and the one remaining Tide class of 27,400 tons full load.

However, the French had no equivalents to the 5 Rover class of small replenishment tankers with a full load displacement of 11,522 tons. Neither did they have equivalents to the 4 large freighting tankers with "Leaf" names which had full load displacements of 40,200 (two ships), 26,480 and 25,790 tons respectively.

The British also had 5 replenishments ships carrying dry stores of the Fort, Ness and Regnet classes to which the French had no direct equivalents. Except the Durance class carried dry stores too.

One reason why the Marine Nationale has fewer tankers could be that it has far fewer ocean going warships.

I've already mentioned the aircraft carriers, helicopter cruiser and amphibious ships and noted that the numbers were about the same. This is an analysis of the cruisers, destroyers and frigates.

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 the Royal Navy had 4 cruisers, 12 destroyers and 43 frigates. However, as we will see it classed some destroyers as cruisers and some frigates as destroyers.

• Bristol and the 3 surviving Counties were classed as cruisers rather than destroyers.
• Similarly the 4 Type 22 frigates so far completed were classified as destroyers. The other 8 destroyers were the Type 42s so far completed.
• The ships that Jane's classed as frigates were 6 Type 21, 25 Leander class, 9 Rothesay class, one Whitby class and (in reserve) 2 Tribal class.

These 8 Type 42 destroyers don't include the 2 ships lost in the Falklands War and the 6 Type 21 frigates don't include the 2 ships lost in the Falklands either.

Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 says that France had one cruiser (Colbert), 19 destroyers and 24 frigates for a total of 44.

• However, the destroyers were 2 Suffren class, 3 Tourville, 3 Georges Leygues class, Anconit and 10 ships to the T47/53/56 type. This includes at least 4 ships that would be classified as frigates in other navies.
• The frigates were the 9 Commandant Rivière class and 15 A69 class.

The Commandant Rivière class were designed for the colonial sloop role. On the other hand they were developed from the Le Nomand and Le Corse classes which were convoy escorts so they might do make good escorts for the amphibious ships and requisitioned merchantmen. Their three 100mm guns would be useful for shore bombardment and when providing an anti-aircraft screen during the landings.

The A69s were designed to be coast defence ships rather than ocean going warships. On the other hand the Argentines had 3 A69s of their own and they seem to have coped with the sea conditions around the Falklands. Although, as far as I know, they always operated as an independent force rather than screen the carrier and cruiser which was the job of the destroyers.

On paper there were 59 RN and 43 MN ships. However, I think that all the RN ships were "proper" ocean going warships while on the French side only Colbert and the 19 ships that Jane's classed as destroyers fall into the same category. The A69s definitely aren't and the Commandant Rivière class were iffy.

You might think I'm being harsh, but I think putting the A69s and Commandant Rivières in the same category as Leanders makes it look as if they are as good an I think they aren't, though to be fair they were designed to do different jobs.

I think this is a more accurate comparison:

• RN: 59 destroyers and Frigates
• MN: one cruiser; 19 destroyers and frigates; 9 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières) and 15 corvettes (the A69s) for a total of 44.

Having written that, Colbert and the 19 French destroyers were on balance just as good as their British equivalents in terms of quality.

To conclude. One of the reasons why the British had 13 tankers to the France's 4 could be that the former had 59 ocean going destroyers and frigates while the French only had 20 comparable warships.

 

[Nik]

"France would have ensured the Malouines had a decent airport..."
snark:
Of course they would, how else could their vin still be nouveau ??
/

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"France would have ensured the Malouines had a decent airport..."
snark:
Of course they would, how else could their vin still be nouveau ??

Although that's a joke I'm currently looking the French Navy up in Jane's Fighting Ships 1974-75 and the entry on the Underway Replenishment Tankers La Saone and La Seine of 24,000 tons full load says that they can carry 11,500 tons of fuel, 275 tons of fuel and wine tanks holding 82,000 litres! That's the equivalent of 109,300 bottles!

 

[H_K]

• RN: 59 destroyers and Frigates
• MN: one cruiser; 19 destroyers and frigates; 9 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières) and 15 corvettes (the A69s) for a total of 44.

Yes. That said the French escort #s should still be sufficient for 2 task forces.

The CVBG could sail with ~8 destroyers/frigates (assuming same as RN historical). These would be high-end escorts and on par quality wise with the RN’s best.

The invasion force would then sail with ~4 destroyers/escorts and 2-3 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières).

That’s a total 12 of 20 destroyers/frigates and 2-3 of 9 light frigates. I doubt the A69s would be sent at all - more useful to use them to cover home waters and other patrols.

Naturally the focus would have to be on retaking the Falklands - I doubt the South Georgia operation would go ahead (due to lack of numbers). There also would be no reserves or 3rd echelon (which anyway arrived too late for the RN to have a major impact).

From a logistics perspective, many of the French ships have long legs and may be less reliant on resupply, so that is a small advantage.

(See my posts #107 and #138)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"France would have ensured the Malouines had a decent airport..."
snark:
Of course they would, how else could their vin still be nouveau ??

If they did have a decent airport that would work in the Argentines favour.

On the other hand the French garrison might have been larger than the few score Royal Marines that HMG provided.

The French Navy maintained squadrons in the West Indies, Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is what they were in 1982 according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

West Indies: 2 ships - it didn't say what they were.​

​

Indian Ocean: La Charente (Flag) 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 5 patrol craft and one tanker​

​

Pacific: 3 frigates, one LSD, 4 LST, 1 Fast Attack Craft (Missile) and one tug.​

If the Falkland Islands had been French there's a good chance that a force one or two frigates would have been maintained in the South Atlantic too. Although I poo pooed the Commandant Rivières and A69s in Post 176 the former were perfect for this (as that's what they were designed to do) and the latter would be a good guard ship for the Falklands (again as that's what they were was designed to do).

If the ships had been there would General Galtieri and Co have though twice about invading the islands or was the Junta too desperate for them to make a difference?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

• RN: 59 destroyers and Frigates
• MN: one cruiser; 19 destroyers and frigates; 9 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières) and 15 corvettes (the A69s) for a total of 44.

I'm not sure whether you're supporting or contradicting me.

Yes. That said the French escort #s should still be sufficient for 2 task forces.

I wasn't claiming that there weren't enough ships for two task forces.

The CVBG could sail with ~8 destroyers/frigates (assuming same as RN historical). These would be high-end escorts and on par quality wise with the RN’s best.

I agree and wrote as much.

I think this is a more accurate comparison:

• RN: 59 destroyers and Frigates
• MN: one cruiser; 19 destroyers and frigates; 9 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières) and 15 corvettes (the A69s) for a total of 44.

Having written that, Colbert and the 19 French destroyers were on balance just as good as their British equivalents in terms of quality.

The invasion force would then sail with ~4 destroyers/escorts and 2-3 light frigates (the Commandant Rivières).

Agreed and I wrote as much.

The Commandant Rivière class were designed for the colonial sloop role. On the other hand they were developed from the Le Nomand and Le Corse classes which were convoy escorts so they might do make good escorts for the amphibious ships and requisitioned merchantmen. Their three 100mm guns would be useful for shore bombardment and when providing an anti-aircraft screen during the landings.

That’s a total 12 of 20 destroyers/frigates and 2-3 of 9 light frigates. I doubt the A69s would be sent at all - more useful to use them to cover home waters and other patrols.

I agree about the A69s which in part is because that's what they were designed to do.

Naturally the focus would have to be on retaking the Falklands - I doubt the South Georgia operation would go ahead (due to lack of numbers). There also would be no reserves or 3rd echelon (which anyway arrived too late for the RN to have a major impact).

South Georgia was done because Mrs Thatcher needed a early victory and my guess is President Mitterrand would need one too. Also it might be somewhere to send the depot and maintenance ships to set up an advanced base.

From a logistics perspective, many of the French ships have long legs and may be less reliant on resupply, so that is a small advantage.

(See my posts #107 and #138)

That is one of the things in favour of the Commandant Rivières and possibly the A69s because they had diesel engines. Other warships and auxiliaries with diesel propulsion were the Georges Leygues class frigates, Ouragan class LSDs, Durance class tankers, Juels Verne and the Rhin class depot ships.

However, with the exception of the Georges Leygues class the high-end ships (aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers) were all steam turbine powered.

Though the point was that the MN probably had the tankers to get to the Falklands even though it had many fewer than the British RFA and a merchant marine that was only half the size of Britain's to back it up, because it had fewer warships to refuel.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

See my posts #107 and #138)

Seen. For what it's worth I should have read them properly when I was skimming through the thread this morning before I wrote Posts 157, 158 and 165.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 107

Ports available for resupply: 4 options within 4,500nm. French Guyana, Dakar (Senegal), Abidjan (Ivory Coast), Libreville (Gabon). Dakar would be ideal (closest to France), but any of the above would work for picking up oil/food supplies. Historically the Brits used Freetown (Sierra Leone) which is the same distance.

Replenishment fleet:
The 2 Durance replenishment tankers can shuttle back & forth every ~12 days, bringing each time ~10,000 tons of liquids, food for 6,000 men for 9 days, and 150t of munitions.

This should be enough to cover 80% of the ~CVBG’s oil & food needs, leading to a slow drawdown of the ships’ stores over 45 days of operations.

Additional liquids from 2 oilers (La Charente + Isère) should be sufficient to make up for the liquids shortfall, with each oiler making ~13 day shuttle runs and bringing ~15,000t oil each time.

Some of France’s merchant oiler fleet will be needed to bring fuel to the staging port, and ideally all the way into the staging area for at sea transfer. Some cargo ships with cranes should also be available to bring food and supplies.

So… based on the above I feel pretty confident that the carrier group could be supplied on station for the duration of the conflict. This is enough to gain sea control and air superiority and cut off the Argentine forces from resupply… ie. sufficient for strategic victory.

Next: let’s look at the supply situation for the invasion force to actually win on the ground.

And this is the table that I originally uploaded in Post 165.

​

According to the same source these are the distances from the four anchorages in South Georgia to Port Stanley are:

• 792 nautical miles Prince Olav Harbour
• 794 nautical miles Leith Harbour
• 794 nautical miles Stromness Bay
• 799 nautical miles Port of Grytviken

They're all about 5,000 n.m. closer to Port Stanley than Dakar and the steaming time of 3.3 days at 10 knots is about 21.0 days less than Port Stanley to Dakar.

Extract from Post 179.

Naturally the focus would have to be on retaking the Falklands - I doubt the South Georgia operation would go ahead (due to lack of numbers). There also would be no reserves or 3rd echelon (which anyway arrived too late for the RN to have a major impact).

Extract from Post 181 which was my reply.

South Georgia was done because Mrs Thatcher needed a early victory and my guess is President Mitterrand would need one too. Also it might be somewhere to send the depot and maintenance ships to set up an advanced base.

Part of Post 107 again.

Some of France’s merchant oiler fleet will be needed to bring fuel to the staging port, and ideally all the way into the staging area for at sea transfer. Some cargo ships with cranes should also be available to bring food and supplies.

Therefore, I think there's an excellent logistical reason for the South Georgia operation to go ahead, which is to provide a staging port that's considerably closer to the Falklands than the ports in French Guiana and former French West Africa.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Extract from Post 180.

The French Navy maintained squadrons in the West Indies, Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is what they were in 1982 according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

West Indies: 2 ships - it didn't say what they were.​

​

Indian Ocean: La Charente (Flag) 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 5 patrol craft and one tanker​

​

Pacific: 3 frigates, one LSD, 4 LST, 1 Fast Attack Craft (Missile) and one tug.​

La Charente is one of the four replenishment tankers. (I'm guessing that the other tanker mentioned is one of the three small support tankers that I didn't mention before because the largest has a full load displacement of 3,500 tons. EDIT: I was wrong it is one of the four large tankers. See Post 186.)

The nearest French territory in the Indian Ocean to the Falklands is Réunion and Le Port Réunion to Port Stanley is 7,113 n.m (29.6 days at 10 knots) and to Grytviken in South Georgia is 6,007 n.m. (25.0 days at 10 knots) which are shorter than the distances from Toulon to those places. Except that the ship might have been somewhere else in the Indian Ocean that was a lot further away from the Falklands.

Five out of seven amphibious ships are in the Pacific Ocean and the French Army's marines are in France. Can they scrape a landing force together from the garrisons of the French Pacific territories? Even if they can will they still have to go back to France to pick up the equipment? If they do have to go back to France it might mean they can't get to the Falklands before the Southern Hemisphere winter starts.

These are the rest of the French Fleet Dispositions (not including refits) according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83

Mediterranean Fleet: Colbert (Flag) 2 aircraft carriers, 12 submarines, 6 destroyers, 7 frigates, 4 large patrol craft, 6 MCMV, 3 survey ships and 4 support ships.​

​

Atlantic Fleet: 12 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 SSBN, one SSN, 6 submarines and one tanker.​

​

Training Squadron: Doudart de Lagree​

​

The SSN is Rubis which according to the book commissioned in July 1982. However, my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 says her actual commissioning date was 28th February 1983.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

More information about the French tanker force.

According to Internet Archives copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83 Var the third Durance was due to commission in December 1982 having been launched June 1981. This is was an accurate prediction because my personal copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 says she was launched on 1st June 1981 and commissioned on 29th January 1983.

Marne the fourth Durance class was laid down on 4th August 1982, launched on 2nd February 1985 and was due to commission in October 1986. Wikipedia says it commissioned on 16th January 1987.

A fifth yet unnamed Durance was ordered in 1986. Except that Wikipedia says Somme was laid down on 3rd May 1985, launched on 3rd October 1987 and commissioned on 7th March 1990.

My personal copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 also has the Support/Replenishment Tanker Port Vendres of 25,253 tons standard displacement (it doesn't give a full load displacement) and 15 knots completed in 1975. It was chartered from SOFLUMAR on 4th August 1982 for a year, which was renewed in 1983. It was refitted for underway replenishment. The book says that this charter was necessitated by the deployment of two tankers to the Indian Ocean. The ship was based in the Mediterranean, with support for other stations.

So two out of four French tankers were in the Indian Ocean when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.

The three small Support Tankers that I previously discounted were:

• Aber Wrach of 3,500 tons full load and 12 knots. According to JFS 1986-87 it could carry out stern refuelling something that JFS 1982-83 failed to mention.
• The other two were Papenoo and Punaruu of 4,050 tons full load and 12 knots which also had a stern replenishment at sea facility. Both were serving in the Pacific. JFS 1982-83 did mention the RAS capability which I didn't notice before, but it also said that their full load displacements were 2,927 tons and didn't mention that they were serving in the Pacific.

My personal copy of JFS 1986-87 also notes that 2 large Support/Replenishment Tankers of 32,000 tons and 14.3 knots were on on order and the first was laid down on 1st September 1985. They were to operate between the Persian Gulf and Réunion, possibly with civilian crews and were to have a two ship RAS capability.

According to Internet Archive's copy of JFS 1988-89 these ships were built as Mescarin and Penhors, which were laid down on 10th September 1985 and 3rd February 1986 respectively and completed on 11th July 1986 and 22nd December 1986 respectively. They displaced 32,000 tons, deadwieght and their maximum speed was 14 knots. As the earlier edition of Jane's said they operated between the Persian Gulf and Réunion with civilian crews and had a two ship RAS capability.

This meant that the total force available was 5 Durance class (because according to this edition of Jane's Somme commissioned in May 1988), 3 large Support/Replenishment Tankers, because they still had Port Vendres and and the three small Support Tankers because Aber Wrach, Papenoo and Punaruu were still in service.

 

[Archibald]

Extract from Post 180.

The French Navy maintained squadrons in the West Indies, Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is what they were in 1982 according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83.

West Indies: 2 ships - it didn't say what they were.​

​

Indian Ocean: La Charente (Flag) 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 5 patrol craft and one tanker​

​

Pacific: 3 frigates, one LSD, 4 LST, 1 Fast Attack Craft (Missile) and one tug.​

La Charente is one of the four replenishment tankers. (I'm guessing that the other tanker mentioned is one of the three small support tankers that I didn't mention before because the largest has a full load displacement of 3,500 tons. EDIT: I was wrong it is one of the four large tankers. See Post 186.)

The nearest French territory in the Indian Ocean to the Falklands is Réunion and Le Port Réunion to Port Stanley is 7,113 n.m (29.6 days at 10 knots) and to Grytviken in South Georgia is 6,007 n.m. (25.0 days at 10 knots) which are shorter than the distances from Toulon to those places. Except that the ship might have been somewhere else in the Indian Ocean that was a lot further away from the Falklands.

Five out of seven amphibious ships are in the Pacific Ocean and the French Army's marines are in France. Can they scrape a landing force together from the garrisons of the French Pacific territories? Even if they can will they still have to go back to France to pick up the equipment? If they do have to go back to France it might mean they can't get to the Falklands before the Southern Hemisphere winter starts.

These are the rest of the French Fleet Dispositions (not including refits) according to Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83

Mediterranean Fleet: Colbert (Flag) 2 aircraft carriers, 12 submarines, 6 destroyers, 7 frigates, 4 large patrol craft, 6 MCMV, 3 survey ships and 4 support ships.​

​

Atlantic Fleet: 12 destroyers, 4 frigates, 4 SSBN, one SSN, 6 submarines and one tanker.​

​

Training Squadron: Doudart de Lagree​

​

The SSN is Rubis which according to the book commissioned in July 1982. However, my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87 says her actual commissioning date was 28th February 1983.

Early in the thread I linked Le Monde newspaper archive june 18 1982. The SSN had to make its shakedown cruise (TLD) before commissioning early 1983 so July 1982 is not correct. The crew was exhausted having spent months correcting the ship flaws.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Early in the thread I linked Le Monde newspaper archive june 18 1982. The SSN had to make its shakedown cruise (TLD) before commissioning early 1983 so July 1982 is not correct. The crew was exhausted having spent months correcting the ship flaws.

I know that July 1982, was wrong because later editions of Jane's (including 1986-87 which I quoted) say so.

 

[Hood]

I've heard that one of the reasons why the Embraer-Short Tucano won the contract to replace the Jet Provost in the RAF was to repay the Brazilian Government for helping the UK during the Falklands War.

Is that true? And if it is, what was the help that the Brazilians provided?

Not directly true.
Yes there was a desire to keep Brazil sweet and patch up any diplomatic spats post-Falklands - but by far what attracted attention was Embraer's expertise in flogging civil aircraft to emerging markets (hoping to get the Shorts 330 and 360 a leg up no doubt) and the balance of payments and hopes that they might order more UK weaponry (already had Niteroi of course and would go on to buy Lynx for them). I don't think there was any attempt to push Hawk though (Brazil happily building MB.326 copies still).

 

[H_K]

And this is the table that I originally uploaded in Post 165.

Just a note that these distances seem odd… too long. (Might be statute miles and straight line paths) Here are the correct distances mapping the great circle routes using a distance calculator:

Toulon - Dakar: 2,225nm
Dakar - Port Stanley: 4,500nm

Toulon - Abidjan: 3,375nm
Abidjan - Port Stanley: 4,400nm

Toulon - French Guyana: 3,900nm
French Guyana - Port Stanley: 4,300nm

www.daftlogic.com/projects-advanced-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

 

[Yellow Palace]

Just a note that these distances seem odd… too long. (Might be statute miles and straight line paths) Here are the correct distances mapping the great circle routes using a distance calculator:

Those are distances by sea, which necessarily means that they aren't anywhere close to a great circle.

 

[H_K]

Those are distances by sea, which necessarily means that they aren't anywhere close to a great circle

No. Great circle definitely applies to distances by sea, though obviously you have to draw the path to avoid landmasses (where applicable… there are none in between West Africa and the Falklands).

Honestly rather than trying to sound smart and nitpick my research, it would be nice if you could first have verified for yourself using the mapping tool that I had nicely provided ;-)

 

[Yellow Palace]

Those are distances by sea, which necessarily means that they aren't anywhere close to a great circle

No. Great circle definitely applies to distances by sea, though obviously you have to draw the path to avoid landmasses (where applicable… there are none in between West Africa and the Falklands).

Honestly rather than trying to sound smart and nitpick my research, it would be nice if you could first have verified for yourself using the mapping tool that I had nicely provided ;-)

My apologies, I was posting from mobile after a slightly frustrating day.

You're quite right, the distances from ports.com do seem excessive; I've run the same routes in Marine Traffic's voyage planner (which takes into account historic preferred routing) and come up with shorter distances for the northern legs:

Toulon - Dakar: 2,253 nm
Toulon - Abidjan: 3,442 nm
Toulon - French Guyana: 4,025 nm

These are slightly longer than your estimates, but not signficantly so.

For some reason that voyage planner (at least the free version) wants to send traffic from West Africa through the Panama Canal, and from French Guiana via Cape Verde, which clearly adds significantly to the distance. But those distances are at least much longer than @NOMISYRRUC's figures from ports.com, putting an upper bound on the weirdness of its' routing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't remember this being asked before and haven't checked the thread to see if it has.

Does swapping France with the UK mean that the latter doesn't sell 2 Type 42 destroyers to Argentina and in their place the former sells 2 Masurca armed destroyers to Argentina instead?

Does it also mean that France doesn't sell Super Etendards, 3 A69 corvettes and Exocet missiles to Argentina? What do the British sell in their place. I was going to say Buccaneers and Martels in place of the Super Etendards and AM39 Exocets but I doubt that the Argentine aircraft carrier could cope with the Buccaneer.

 

[Archibald]

There is no MASURCA ships to spare with the Argies. Because there were only three of them, two frigates plus the Colbert cruiser (that third MASURCA system was rather unlucky: it lost its frigate to 42 Crusaders, then bounced off Jeanne d'Arc to land on Colbert at least).

And Tartar ships are, well, Uncle Sam decision.

Maybe some T47 or T53 old generation destroyers could be passed to Argentina, but see above: unlike the British Sea-something SAMs, their missiles belongs to another country, kind of.

 

[Archibald]

And just in case you need a French Murdoch asshole and press mogul (unfortunately) for a GOTCHA headline - France closest analogy (anal - is kind of appropriate for that kind of mogul)

Robert Hersant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can readily see that moron pulling a similar headline, something like "vlan dans ta gueule, Argentine".

 

[timmymagic]

I've heard that one of the reasons why the Embraer-Short Tucano won the contract to replace the Jet Provost in the RAF was to repay the Brazilian Government for helping the UK during the Falklands War.

Is that true? And if it is, what was the help that the Brazilians provided?

Not directly true.
Yes there was a desire to keep Brazil sweet and patch up any diplomatic spats post-Falklands - but by far what attracted attention was Embraer's expertise in flogging civil aircraft to emerging markets (hoping to get the Shorts 330 and 360 a leg up no doubt) and the balance of payments and hopes that they might order more UK weaponry (already had Niteroi of course and would go on to buy Lynx for them). I don't think there was any attempt to push Hawk though (Brazil happily building MB.326 copies still).

Brazil also loaned some Bandeirante MPA to the Argenitinian's during the war. They were pretty neutral. They impounded the Vulcan (and pinched the Shrike that was hanging) quite reasonably. The Tucano buy was also a bit of a gift to Shorts Bros. (who proceeded to make them all slightly different sizes...).

 

[zen]

How about a development if ACAM?

Say this wins instead of HAWK?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've heard that one of the reasons why the Embraer-Short Tucano won the contract to replace the Jet Provost in the RAF was to repay the Brazilian Government for helping the UK during the Falklands War.

Is that true? And if it is, what was the help that the Brazilians provided?

Not directly true.
Yes there was a desire to keep Brazil sweet and patch up any diplomatic spats post-Falklands - but by far what attracted attention was Embraer's expertise in flogging civil aircraft to emerging markets (hoping to get the Shorts 330 and 360 a leg up no doubt) and the balance of payments and hopes that they might order more UK weaponry (already had Niteroi of course and would go on to buy Lynx for them). I don't think there was any attempt to push Hawk though (Brazil happily building MB.326 copies still).

Brazil also loaned some Bandeirante MPA to the Argenitinian's during the war. They were pretty neutral. They impounded the Vulcan (and pinched the Shrike that was hanging) quite reasonably. The Tucano buy was also a bit of a gift to Shorts Bros. (who proceeded to make them all slightly different sizes...).

Short Bros. was one of Northern Ireland's biggest employers.

I suspect that keeping the firm in business was a very important factor in the selection of the Tucano. The DeLorean debacle was recent history and that was small beer compared to the economic and political consequences of Shorts going bust.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There is no MASURCA ships to spare with the Argies. Because there were only three of them, two frigates plus the Colbert cruiser (that third MASURCA system was rather unlucky: it lost its frigate to 42 Crusaders, then bounced off Jeanne d'Arc to land on Colbert at least).

You misunderstand.

I wasn't suggesting selling Suffren and Duquesne, which were the only Masurca armed destroyers in the MN.

I was suggesting two "keel up" new ships armed with Masurca.

And Tartar ships are, well, Uncle Sam decision.

Maybe some T47 or T53 old generation destroyers could be passed to Argentina, but see above: unlike the British Sea-something SAMs, their missiles belongs to another country, kind of.

4 T47s were fitted with 2 SPG-51 radars and a Mk 13 launcher fed by 40-round magazine in the early 1960s. Jane's 1982-83 says they had been upgraded to fire Standard SM-1 missiles. They aren't for sale because the MN needs them and even if they were (as you wrote) Uncle Sam may veto it. Also the SPG-51 radars and Mk 13 GMLS were recycled for the C70AA version.

That brings me onto something I was going to as in a PM. 1970s editions of Jane's Fighting Ships say that 24 C70s were planned and that initially half were to be the AA version but this was changed to 18AS and 6AA.

This was reduced from 24 to nine (6AS and 3AA), then increased to 12 (8AS and 4AA) with nine (7AS and 2AA) actually being built.

Do you know where the 2-8 extra Mk 13 GMLSs and 4-16 extra SPG-51 radars were coming from?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There is no MASURCA ships to spare with the Argies. Because there were only three of them, two frigates plus the Colbert cruiser (that third MASURCA system was rather unlucky: it lost its frigate to 42 Crusaders, then bounced off Jeanne d'Arc to land on Colbert at least).

And Tartar ships are, well, Uncle Sam decision.

Maybe some T47 or T53 old generation destroyers could be passed to Argentina, but see above: unlike the British Sea-something SAMs, their missiles belongs to another country, kind of.

Masurca was equivalent to the USN's Terrier/Standard ER in its Mk 10 GMLS form.

I recall reading that a "Masurca Junior" system which was equivalent to the USN's Tatar/Standard MR was proposed or even reached the prototype stage. Is my recollection correct?

If I have recollected correctly could it be fitted to the C70AA instead of the recycled Tatar? For one thing it would have allowed 4 T47s to be available in 1982 instead of 3. If it was possible the 2 DDGs sold to Argentina instead of the British Type 42s would have been C70AAs.

And for bonus points could the "Masurca Junior" fitted to C70AA have employed a VLS instead of a conventional launcher and magazine?